Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-18 Public Comment - D. Weiss - Beer & Wine License (Ordinance 1999)From:Dave Weiss To:Agenda Subject:Public comment on proposed Ordinance No 1999. Date:Monday, March 19, 2018 6:55:56 PM Attachments:Public comments-3-18-18.pdf To Whom It May Concern, Please see the attached PDF file for my public comment to the city commission, zoning commission and staff regarding proposed Ordinance No 1999. Thank you. David Weiss I am submitting my comments regarding proposed Ordinance 1999 amending Sections 4 & 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. I support all of the proposed changes to section 4. However I suggest that the city choose to strike all of the restrictions proposed in 38.360.060(2) and allow a City Beer License With Wine Amendment to operate in the B3 and B2M districts as the licenses were intended by the state. 38.360.060 (2) could simply read: “2. Restaurants located within the B-2M and B-3 zoning districts if the restaurant serves alcohol on premise only pursuant to a state issued beer license with wine amendment” Also, note that ARM 42.13.1104 (2-b) says an establishment must be a “restaurant” to have a wine amendment to a city beer license, so further defining a restaurant is unnecessary. The issue of enforcement must also be considered. How does the city plan on devoting the time, money and personnel resources to monitor and enforce these restrictions? I will address each proposed restriction individually below. The numbered items are the proposal from Staff and my comments are under each numbered item. 1.All alcohol is sold for on premise consumption only; MCA 16-3-306 (Section 3) already specifically states that off-premises sales of beer and wine in their original packaging are allowed within 600 ft. of a church or school. ARM 42.13.1104(3-a) extends that to include growlers of beer and wine. Also, this restricts “retail” operations from existing in portions of B3 and B2M districts, which is counterproductive to attracting retail activity in zones where retail is being promoted by the city. 2.The restaurant must have individually priced meals prepared and served for on-site dining; ARM 42.13.1104 (2-b) says an establishment must be a restaurant to have a wine amendment to their city beer license. Also, this restricts a hotel that would like to serve drinks to their patron without being a full-scale food service operation. 3.Alcohol can only be sold to patrons who order food; Just to be clear, this prohibits an establishment serving a group of friends or coworkers who would like to meet for a single after work drink. This will also restrict a hotel that would like to serve drinks to their patron without being a full-scale food service operation. This is counterproductive to a thriving downtown and B2M district. 4.65% of the restaurant’s annual gross income must be from the sale of food; What is the purpose of dictating this percentage? If the goal is that an establishment is “more” of a restaurant than a bar, then I would suggest changing this number to 51% of sales being from food. Although any restriction also restricts a hotel that would like to serve drinks to their patron without being a full-scale food service operation. Is the city prepared to yank an establishment's Special/Conditional Use Permit for selling only 64% food one year? 5.Must have a dining room, kitchen and necessary employees for preparing food on the premises; This restricts a hotel that would like to serve drinks to their patrons without being a full-scale food service operation. 6.The restaurant must serve an evening meal at least four (4) days a week for at least two (2) hours a day between the hours of 5:00 PM and 11:00 PM and if food is served beyond these hours may only sell alcohol between the hours of 11:00 am and 11:00 pm; The restriction of hours from 11am to 11pm would prevent an establishment from serving a successful weekend brunch that could include mimosas. Also, an 11pm restriction on weekends may further inhibit business on weekend nights. If a restriction further than the state 8am-2am hours is desired, I would suggest allowing the sale of beer and wine between 9am and midnight. Also, the evening meal requirement restricts a hotel that would like to serve drinks to their patron without being a full-scale food service operation. 7.Gambling or gaming is prohibited; All City Beer Licenses with Wine Amendment created after October 1, 1997 already have had this restriction (see MCA 16-4-105 Section 12). If it pleases the city to place this restriction on older licenses that don't have this restriction at the state level and might be moved into the B3 or B2M districts, I would feel that this is a reasonable restriction that serves a particular purpose. However, I believe there are very few city beer licenses with wine amendments that also have gambling/gaming attached. I am working on gather details on this. 8.Alcohol must be stored on premise; This rule already exists for City Beer Licenses with Wine Amendment at the state level via ARM 42.13.1104(1-b), so this restriction is duplicating already existing state code. 9.Must prevent self-service of alcohol. This rule already exists for City Beer Licenses with Wine Amendment at the state level via ARM 42.13.1104(1-d) so this restriction is duplicating already existing state code. In conclusion, I suggest that the city choose to strike all of the above restrictions and allow a City Beer License With Wine Amendment to operate in the B3 and B2M districts as the licenses were intended by the state. However, if some restrictions are desired, keeping the gambling/gaming restriction and limiting hours of the sales of beer and wine from 9am to midnight would be reasonable. These restrictions would also not take significant city resources to enforce. But please note that any restrictions create 2 separate “subzones” within the B3 and B2M districts for the service of beer and wine. This is confusing for potential B3 and B2M business owners, as well as being counterproductive for the city's intention of making the B3 and B2M districts thriving retail and entertainment areas that are the backbone of a successful Bozeman. Not only does this impact current and future owners of licenses trying to start out in the B3 and B2M districts, it also discourages an establishment that may already exist outside of these districts from relocating to Downtown or B2M. These licenses are expensive to buy and difficult to attain, any further restrictions on these licenses only make it more difficult for a person to open a successful establishment that would be beneficial to the B3 and B2M districts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David Weiss